I've just purchased a NSS6000 and I have to say that the speed for writing/reading to the disk is horrible. What's the point of having gigabit network ports when the write speed to the disk is 15MB/s. I've attached two servers with gig ethernet cards, and the NSS on a gigabit switch. When I copy from server to server I get speeds up to 94MB/s, but only 15MB/s towards the NSS.
Are the speed or poor performance I'm experiencing correct??
What's the point of creating LAG's if the performance is so poor?
I'm just a poor user like you so my reply is not authoritative by any means. But I also tried to explain to myself - just to avoid cognitive dissonance inside me - why did I buy this equipment. Here are the results:
- The NSS6000 is veeery slow because it consumpts rather low power. The processor clock is slow, the memory is not too much (512 MB), so the whole system is slow.
- The reason for two ports might be that they provide failover operation.
Try to convince yourself that your NSS6000 is a good piece of ... engineering. Sometimes I succeed in this field (except when after a firmware upgrade I can't access NFS shares anymore).
Hello and good evening.
Yes, the bottleneck on these is the read - write speed of the drives. I do not know what the published specs are. Have you called support to find out if the drives are performing and operational?
If you have just created a RAID, this might slow things down some during the operation.
The way I normally explain these NAS boxes is that they are mainly for storage / archiving / backups.
We have seen folks try and watch movies from them, send large database files / cad drawings etc ... and the read / write speed on these does not typically perform to a level that these folk enjoy.
I suggest to call support just to make sure everything is working fine. If everything is working fine but the speed is poor, perhaps there is a way to return these?
The dual ports are for redundancy or pairing. Redundancy is the most common since we already mentioned the bottleneck is the read - write speeds. W/ redundancy the same MAC and IP address can be configured for both cards, and when the active fails, the secondary takes over fairly easily.
Do please let me know. Kindest regards and have a good night,
Andrew Lee Lissitz
Hi and good morning (it's 0:46 here),
I've seen only two units but I've read a lot of complaints on the internet about the (lack of) speed of NSS4000/NSS6000. They are definitely not for backup because backup will benefit from high speed I/O. I use my NSS6000 to watch movies as the sustained data transfer rate is enough for this. For a backup server I've bought a HP ML110G5 server, put extra four SATA disks into it, installed SuSE 11.1 and it works perfectly for the half price. Yes, it eats more electricity but less of my time.
Wow! Good morning to you!
I have a few partners of mine using this with Symantec back up exec or Cisco's CDP (OEM'ed from IBM). Yes, it is slow but works fine for archiving / backups. At least it works fine for them.
Thanks for the response, and feedback as it is always nice to get feedback from partners. Kindest regards,
BTW - just figured I would throw this out there since you mentioned backups. A lot of folks do not know we have this, and there is a free trial in case you are interested in a desktop backup solution.
Whitepaper on CDP:
I´ve been in contact with the small business support center, and they confirmed, the RW speed isn´t any better than 15MB/s, I have to say that I´m extremly dissapointed since I can´t find any datasheet where this is mentioned.
We bought a new raid controller card for one of our old servers instead (from 2004 or something) and the speed on this baby is up tp 90MB/s.
My suggestion to cisco is that they should really tell their partners that the speed on these NSS´s are slow. I think it´s wrong to flag that you´ve got 2 Gbit
ethernet connections when the write speed is slower than a 100Mbit..